To be honest, we got a little lost in the section of the article that discussed how certain people are more able to ignore their biases when evaluating facts. We don’t distrust that science may be able to tell us who might be best suited for jury duty. But we don’t know how we’d get that information.   From Inside the Jurors’ Brain [via]

- So, using functional MRI the researchers measured the task-related BOLD response showing what networks were activated during certain responses by participants in the scanner. Since we know what each network is responsible for, we can reasonably associate that those who assessed evidence in line with their beliefs - the memory/learning areas were activated. On the other hand, those who looked at evidence not consistent with their beliefs, areas relating to error detection were active. So the idea is people can adjust their biases, but it goes through a biological network of error detection and conflict resolution first.  And who has time for that on a jury, unless you have a glove that just won’t fit. Questionnaires from jury consultants designed to uncover these beliefs or biases, aside from asking the obvious, might want to explore more cognitively demanding, moral dilemma type questions - and time them.